Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 21

"New religious movement"
As I said in my edit summary, new religion is *contentious*, the opposite of observing the sky is blue - one reading of "new religious movemement" is "we're too polite to call it a cult, but it's clearly not an established, respectable religion." Just read the article at New religious movement and tell me if it's a straightforward definition that we're linking to. "New religious movement" needs a citation and it's instructive that reputable citations like Britannica could have feasibly chosen to use the term but didn't. Slac speak up! 12:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You're right all the references in the previous section describe it as "a religion" (most common) or "a religious movement" or "world religious body". Cuñado ☼ - Talk  02:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , there is an interesting discussion on this topic, here: https://bahai-library.com/essays_new_religious_movement
 * I would recommend reading "Letter Four" by Denis MacEoin and its reply "Letter Five" by Robert Stockman.Serv181920 (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion there (oddly in forum form) is about "world religion" vs "new religious movement". The article currently says "religion", which should be acceptable and reflects the majority of independent sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  23:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Denis MacEoin says "To say that the Bahá'í religion is a world faith on a par with Islam etc. is, whatever the arguments used to justify it, a nonsense on too many levels." He also says "I've placed it [the Baha'i faith] among NRMs because I haven't found a better place." Baha'i scholar Robert Stockman says: "The category "world religion" I had always assumed had been invented by Bahá'ís, and I am a bit surprised to hear some sociologists have used the term."
 * In the first letter MacEoin states: "Unless somebody can come up with a better classification, NRM will have to serve."
 * I know Baha'is are not using the words "world religion" for their "faith" but I also disagree with the removal of word "new" from the first sentence. That's incorrect because it is a "new religion" with very few followers.
 * I will put a question regarding this on the relevant noticeboard to learn more from other editors.Serv181920 (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say MacEeoin is not only not the defining scholar but a minority opinion to the point of obscurity as a class of about one. Smkolins (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, that is your opinion about him, but the fact that the Baha'i faith is a new religion should not be censored.WP:CENSORServ181920 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You have no argument. The leading paragraph gives the timeframe of "established... in the 19th century" and the second paragraph gives birth/death years of the four major individuals. Nothing is censored and its current wording reflects how it is portrayed in independent reliable sources. Or... maybe you want to describe it as a "new religious movement" to fit your view that it is a neutral term that some people interpret to mean "cult". Provide a survey of reliable sources describing it as a new religious movement or stop wasting our time. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  18:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Cuñado, I'm not sure accusations are the most productive was to have this discussion. The term "new religious movement" isn't a euphemism for cult, it's a way to describe religious movements that are new, purposefully to avoid any judgment. The Baháʼí Faith is very widely considered to be an NRM, as it was founded in the 19th century. Obviously Wiki is not a source, but the NRM list article has several sources recognizing the Baháʼí Faith as an NRM. (I've listed some below) There is no negative implication in that term, all religions were new at some point. AnandaBliss (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Or, even better, no adjective at all (as current text). This is the lede, where description should be kept as simple as possible - in particular avoiding the gratuitous addition of adjectives with possible POV connotations. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about the lead, I was talking about a general description of the Faith. I really don't have any opinion either way bout the lead paragraph. It don't think it's inappropriate, that's all I was saying. Also, NRM has no negative connotations, it was invented specifically to avoid those types of things.AnandaBliss (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * thanks for providing actual sources (intentional jab at Serv181920). The second source doesn't mention the phrase "new religious movement". The first provides this commentary on page 2 that says why it uses a completely different phrase: "Scholars have used a variety of terms to avoid the negative connotations of "sect" and "cult". Some have employed "marginal," a term certainly less pejorative then "cult," but still one that tends to minimize the importance and value of the group in question. "Nonmainstream" has had some following, but it is cumbersome. "New religious movement" has been generally embraced by scholars and by adherents of the nonmainstream religions themselves, but it has at the same time been the source of confusion: does it apply only to truly "new" (at least in the United States) religions, or does it apply to all nonmainstream faiths? The prevailing tendency has been for the term to apply to a wide spectrum of religions, old and new, but it remains ambiguous. It may be that no perfect term exists to describe nonmainstream religions succinctly, but this book adopts a usage that seems to be properly descriptive without bearing heavily pejorative connotations: alternative religions." (Miller, p. 2)
 * Here's another neutral, reliable source describing the Baha'i Faith in a book subtitled Sects, 'cults', and alternative religions: "A world religion with no racial or national focus... a relatively new religion... It is a new worldwide religion... (p. 244) a major world religion... (p. 248) the second most globally widespread religion... (p. 249)" (Barrett, 2001: The New Believers)
 * So far MacEoin, with some neutrality issues, suggests "new religious movement". A large majority of neutral third party sources don't. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  19:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that a majority of sources concerning themselves with what a New Religious Movement is would definitely include the Baháʼí Faith. I don't know what neutrality issues User:MacEoin may have, but a Faith that is new (timespan very vague, I know, generally since ~1800) is generally considered an NRM. I'm also not aware of sources that say that the Baháʼí Faith is not an NRM, which ought not have connotations beyond "religious movement that is relatively new." Personally, I think that using NRM to describe something "nonmainstream," whatever the age, is a misuse, but that's beyond this article. As for the lead, I don't think it's necessary to spell it out there, since readers can see when it was founded. Please know that I'm not opposing anything you're saying, I just don't think that NRM has or should have any negative connotations, as neutrality is the whole reason it was coined. AnandaBliss (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

If there's a good, reliable source out there that says "the Baha'i Faith is a new religious movement" - using the term in the same way the article that was linked to in the intro does - then great. Provide that source, and the problem goes away. Slac speak up! 20:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no problem, I am not trying to get this phrase into the article, and I do not know why your tone is so adversarial. But that's not how academic sourcing typically works, the Baháʼí Faith is often featured in works regarding New Religious Movements, the sourcing for which is very easy to find. For example, the reference sections of the NRM and List of NRM articles. It is a religious movement that is new, how does that not fit the definition of a New Religious Movement? AnandaBliss (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that tone was directed at Serv181920, the initiator of this thread. Things like this have been going on for months. Thanks for contributing! Cuñado ☼ - Talk  23:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "religion" is fine, it doesn't convey any sense of how large or small it is, or how prominent or obscure. I think an editor should give a list of say four sources if they want to use "new religious movement" in the lead sentence (given its potential connotations). That is probably the best we will get since there aren't a lot of review papers available on the Baha'i Faith, given the scarcity of peer-reviewed literature on the topic compared to larger religions.
 * and, I've been watching your debates for some time now and—I know this is hard to imagine—I honestly see no compelling evidence that either of you is here in bad faith or to push POV. Can we try to bury the hatchet and work together? You have different views on what constitutes neutrality but it doesn't mean anyone's deliberately violating NPOV. And Cuñado I know you've been editing a lot longer than Serv181920 and so know the rules a lot better, but it might help if you spelled things out in disagreements. E.g., before telling an editor to stop wasting your time because they didn't use a review paper, explain the difference between a review paper and other academic papers, and why we prefer review papers for contentious points. Most people don't know this stuff. Serv181920, before assuming Cuñado is hopelessly biased, see for example that he has recently added criticism of Baha'is to the Baha'i review article, for example. Anyway, I hope I haven't enflamed things further by saying this. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, and , I am not pushing my POV. It is a "new religion" and that is a fact accepted by Baha'is, former-Baha'is, scholars of religion and others! Here are the sources:
 * The Baha’i faith is a new religion founded by Mirza Husayn 'Ali
 * https://bahai-library.com/balci_jafarov_bahais_caucasus (This is by Azer Jafarov, the same person who claims Musa Naghiyev is a Baha'i)
 * The Baha'i Faith is a new religion founded 150 years ago. (Moojan Momen)
 * https://www.momen.org/bahai/bahaimap.htm
 * The Light Shineth in Darkness: Five Studies in Revelation After Christ, Udo Schaefer (George Ronald)
 * https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=QMwOAAAAIAAJ&q="new+religion"&hl=en
 * ZOROASTRIAN CONVERSIONS TO THE BAHA'I FAITH IN YAZD, IRAN (Dissertation - Stiles, Susan Judith)
 * https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/274855/azu_td_1321402_sip1_w.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
 * Islam and the Baha'i Faith
 * https://bahaiproofs.com/SectIslam.htm
 * The Baha'i Faith: Its History and Teachings By William McElwee Miller, Page 258
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=gc3_6HVvZzkC&pg=PA258#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * If you think I should share more sources please let me know. My experience with the Baha'is have always been unpleasant because of their double standards and their pushing and imposing POVs on others. Don't understand how this is going to help them and for how long!Serv181920 (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Sorry if I got a little frustrated there. The Baháʼí Faith is, foremost, a religion and in the introduction, I do think it's appropriate to simply call it as such. And even though my stance is that NRM is a totally neutral term, a new reader may get the wrong message if they think an NRM is somehow different from a "regular" religion. As for the discussion below, "alternative religion" sounds somewhat marginalizing to me; alternative to what, exactly?
 * , let's not get too riled up about things, editing an article about people whom you feel are "unpleasant because of their double standards and their pushing and imposing POVs on others" can get a little dicey. I frequently have to go on "Wiki breaks," myself. Any section of the article that talks about academic study of the Baháʼí Faith could reflect scholarly discussion and/or disagreement about how to characterize it, maybe that's the best way to approach things. AnandaBliss (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC) (edited)


 * , that's correct, there should be scholarly discussions. I try my level best to produce acceptable sources but sometimes I get a feeling that Baha'i editors want to control entire wikipedia (of course Baha'i articles) and don't let anything come against their religion (be it a very minute point) even if it is from strong academic sources. Be that as it may, i am in the learning phase and I am learning from these very editors. :) And I don't let wiki-editing disturb me. Have a nice day.Serv181920 (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Alternative religion
Miller and Barrett wrote books on the subject of "sects, cults, and alternative religions". I quoted Miller above I'm repeating here so I can get the two together. They both wrote about how NRM was a popular phrase but they both chose to go with 'alternative religion' instead. Keep in mind these are 20-25 years old: "Scholars have used a variety of terms to avoid the negative connotations of "sect" and "cult". Some have employed "marginal," a term certainly less pejorative then "cult," but still one that tends to minimize the importance and value of the group in question. "Nonmainstream" has had some following, but it is cumbersome. "New religious movement" has been generally embraced by scholars and by adherents of the nonmainstream religions themselves, but it has at the same time been the source of confusion: does it apply only to truly "new" (at least in the United States) religions, or does it apply to all nonmainstream faiths? The prevailing tendency has been for the term to apply to a wide spectrum of religions, old and new, but it remains ambiguous. It may be that no perfect term exists to describe nonmainstream religions succinctly, but this book adopts a usage that seems to be properly descriptive without bearing heavily pejorative connotations: alternative religions.(Miller (1995), America's Alternative Religions. P. 2)"

"The term 'new religious movement' is used by most present-day sociologists of religion to avoid the pejorative overtones of 'sect' and 'cult'. This might seem a good solution, but once again there are problems of definition. Not all NRMs are new... Rodney Stark avoids this problem by redefining an NRM as a 'novel religious movement'... Eileen Barker proposes an arbitrary cut-off point at World War II; new religious movements are those founded, in their present form, since then... There are further problems with the term NRM... The term 'alternative religion' avoids the 'newness' problem of 'NRM' by simply and arbitrarily distinguishing between mainstream, established religions and movements which are an alternative to the mainstream. Again this depends on social context; there is nothing alternative about being a Mormon in Salt Lake City.. and again the dividing lines can be debated endlessly... This distinction tends to depend partly on an intuitive and individual understanding of what is generally socially acceptable as "standard'... The term 'alternative religion' thus ties in rather well with how mainstream Christians write about 'sects and cults', but without being pejorative.(Barrett (2001), The New Believers: sects, cults and alternative religions. P. 24)"

It is a real problem what phrase to use here. "New religion" is undefined and relative, and was sitting with a pointer to new religious movement. I haven't seen any source besides MacEoin, so far, use the phrase 'new religious movement' and its issues are well articulated by Miller and Barrett. 'New religion' without the link to NRM would work and matches some sources, but I don't see what that adds when 'new' is relative and the dates are given in the first two paragraphs. 'Alternative religion' is supported as a less pejorative phrase by Miller and Barrett, yet still communicating that it's not mainstream, but I haven't seen any sources using that phrase for Baha'is (and it would need several good sources). Calling it a 'world religion' (as it sat for years on WP) has some sources supporting it but I can see why it's not ideal here. 'Religion' seems to be incredibly neutral and anyone with a brain can see the dates and judge for themselves whether it deviates from their perception of "standard" that Barrett says is the whole point of sociologists trying to come up with a phrase. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  08:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, for the sources. The ones from Momen, Stiles, and Jafarov look reliably sourced, and I believe we can count MacEoin from above since "new religious movement" is similar to "new religion". My best guess is that the other three aren't WP:RS, though the last one from the missionary press might be. We are still waiting for the result of Jafarov/Caucaz.com at the reliable sources noticeboard but my current opinion is that it is good. So I think we have a case for stating "new religion" in the lead sentence, though with the link removed for the reasons Cuñado gave. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * U missed Udo Schaefer (3rd Link), William Hatcher also writes that the Baha'i faith is a "New" religion. Check "Bahá’í Studies Vol. 2 (1980)". "Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements (2005)" also states that Baha'i faith is a "New Religion". I believe - it should be linked with the NRM article.Serv181920 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit: Anthony A. Lee characterizes the faith as a new religious movement in his recent study The Baha’i Faith in Africa: Establishing a New Religious Movement, 1952-1962 (Leiden, NL: Brill, 2011).Serv181920 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can make the leap from "new religion" to "new religious movement" since as other editors noted above the term seems to have its own set of connotations. But since Anthony A. Lee, Denis MacEoin, and the Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements all use the term I will add the link. Thanks for digging up the sources! (About Schaefer, I don't think it's RS because it's written by a Baha'i for a Baha'i publisher... I could only find one article Schaefer published in a non-Baha'i source so it's not clear to me he has a strong academic reputation on the subject that would allow us to overlook the lack of independent review. Hatcher and Martin have a non-Baha'i publisher but as you note they don't use the term "new religious movement.") Gazelle55 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , what is your source for this sentence "and other attempts to convey that it is new (relative to well-established faiths), not mainstream, and with no racial or national focus."?Serv181920 (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you read this talk page? Cuñado ☼ - Talk  16:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If you have the source, cite it. That's simple.Serv181920 (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No opinion on the topic just raised, but just wanted to clarify above,, I was saying you were NOT trying to push POV, not that you were. Sorry, the wording was a bit unclear. And same for Cuñado. Anyway, will mostly be off Wikipedia for the rest of the month so hope you guys work things out in a civil way. Gazelle55 (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You know I am relatively new to Wikipedia so I am learning how the RS and Notability work here. I am not at all trying to be aggressive or rude to anyone, including Baha'i friend/s here :) On the contrary, I see Baha'i editors trying to bite me. :) Never mind. I take it easy. Have a nice time. Bye.Serv181920 (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes (they tried to bite u!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.236.36 (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Explanatory note
I'm not sure exactly what the objection is, but the note currently says, "The Baháʼí Faith is described in reliable sources as a 'religion', 'sect',[1] 'relatively new religion',[2] 'world religion',[3] 'major world religion',[4] 'new religious movement',[5] 'alternative religion',[6] and other attempts to convey that it is new (relative to well-established faiths), not mainstream, and with no racial or national focus."

I find the pushback quite surprising as your goal was to push for new religious movement, and Miller and Barrett are quoted above in this talk page talking about the purpose of that phrase being to convey the two points that the movement is new and nonmainstream. The last part about "no racial or national focus" is a reference to the uses of 'world religion' and 'major world religion', and the phrasing comes directly from Barrett. In an explanatory footnote that already has 6 citations for phrases, and considering what is being written and where it is, I think WP:BLUE and WP:OVERCITE are applicable here. The same goes for why I didn't put a citation on the 'religion' description, because that is by far the most common term used and... duh. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  08:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I was expecting a citation after this sentence "other attempts to convey that it is new (relative to well-established faiths), not mainstream, and with no racial or national focus." That's all.Serv181920 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Garlington
Although this conversation seems to be dead, I thought this was a significant addition to the dialogue on how to classify the religion, from Garlington, The Baha'i Faith in America (2008), pp. 182-183: "Initial reflection might cause one to classify the Faith as a new religious movement: that is a religious group outside of the cultural mainstream whose appearance on the American scene is realtively recent. While such a classification may be sociologically convenient, it is somewhat misleading... The Baha'i Faith is somewhat of an anomaly when it comes to religious classification. The religion would seem to fall into a certain gray area somewhere between a new religious movement and an independent world religion." <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  05:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Denis MacEoin
And this is by MacEoin who believes that the Baha'i faith should be categorised as a NRM. He also states: "The Baha’i religion is a small international community whose members wish to be perceived as adherents of a ‘major world religion’. This creates problems for Baha’is, since outside observers may contradict their self-perception and use different criteria to evaluate their status." Serv181920 (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Excommunication is also a Baha'i term
Hi, , Excommunication is also a Baha'i term and used multiple times in all kinds of sources. Why are you removing it? , what are your thoughts?Serv181920 (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A quick check finds the vast majority referring to Christian history or people who were named covenant-breakers complaining about their treatment. I think other uses are extremely rare and usually by people trying to reference the idea and if you look at the excommunication article it's full of Christian references and makes the point repeatedly that other religions don't fit well with the label as I said repeatedly in the edit summary.Smkolins (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * To elaborate I only found a single use by a national assembly using the term as seems to be described here. Nothing other administratively. Smkolins (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will put some sources tomorrow if I get time. Have a nice time.Serv181920 (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * From a cursory glance, Adamson uses "shun" and "avoid association"; Smith uses "avoid association" and "excommunicate". Technically the dictionary definition of excommunicate is, "officially exclude (someone) from participation in the sacraments and services of the Christian Church". I'm not really hung up on which word to use. They all are fairly synonymous. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  03:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think "shunned" is pretty clear already. We could also have "excommunicated," but I think the key point then is whether the sources being cited use the word. Or if a lot of sources used the term, then we would need to add one that does before putting the word in the article. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the critical difference (and the reason "excommunicated" doesn't quite fit as a Baha'i term) lies in the exclusion of participating in the sacraments of the Catholic/Christian church. Sacraments are non existent in the Baha'i Faith. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   20:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That's fine. We should add "Baha'i faith" section to "Excommunication" article and mention the difference.Serv181920 (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are the sources for "excommunication" in the Baha'i faith:
 * It is there at least 4 times in the above source.
 * It is there at least 4 times in the above source.


 * In the above source Smith and Momen says "Shoghi Effendi had no children, and he himself had previously excommunicated his siblings and cousins..."
 * and
 * "In turn, this doctrine is supported by the policy of excommunication of those 'covenant-breakers' who vehemently oppose the authority of the centre"
 * In the above source Smith and Momen says "Shoghi Effendi had no children, and he himself had previously excommunicated his siblings and cousins..."
 * and
 * "In turn, this doctrine is supported by the policy of excommunication of those 'covenant-breakers' who vehemently oppose the authority of the centre"


 * Above source states "Any sort of organized protest movement would be considered “covenant breaking” and result in excommunication,..."
 * Above source states "Any sort of organized protest movement would be considered “covenant breaking” and result in excommunication,..."


 * Above source states "...much of Baha'ullah's own family was excommunicated."
 * Above source states "...much of Baha'ullah's own family was excommunicated."

These are just a few sources. I can produce more if our Baha'i friends don't agree with these. Serv181920 (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said it wasn't used - I said it was a loaded term and had a Christian focus that non-Christian religions find it objectionable. But fine let's review some alternatives:

Why aren't we talking about "apostate"? Smkolins (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 687 uses of "covenant-breaker" at Bahai-Library.com
 * 396 uses of "apostate" at Bahai-Library.com
 * 348 uses of "excommunicate" at Bahai-Library.com
 * 127 uses of "Ex-Baha'i" at Bahai-Library.com
 * 49 uses of "disenrolled" at Bahai-Library.com


 * I also found this in Udo Shaefer's book:
 * The divine law does not contain a legal definition of this offense, but from the scriptural passages, it is clear that only exponents of subversion and sedition are covenant-breakers (naqidu'l-mithaq): they who "sow the seeds of doubt in the hearts of men" and promote "discord" and bring about "division." 'Abdu'l-Baha calls them "mischief-makers" who are "seeking leadership." Because they do not declare their evil intentions openly but instead "they secretly sow the seeds of suspicion" — "sweet in words, ... but at heart a deadly poison" — they are also referred to as "hypocrites" (al-munafiqun). As the covenant-breaker has struck with his axe at "the root of the Blessed Tree" the divine law provides that covenant-breakers, along with all who continue to associate with them, be cast out from the congregation of the people of Baha. The believer who has been excommunicated is no longer a member of the Baha'i community.


 * https://bahai-library.com/pdf/s/schaefer_introduction_bahai_law.pdf


 * Edit: Smkolins, I noticed your comment just now. Will read it and respond.


 * Serv181920 (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Smkolins, You have only searched bahai-library.com. There are other sources also. And don't you think your findings are WP:OR Serv181920 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Its a representative sample of available sources. It conveys a pattern. I didn't summarize to add documentation. I showed pretty plainly that excommunicate is a minor term at best and we're spending a lot of time discussing it when the vast majority of sources do not and other words are at least as common as that one, and that one is often cited in the very article as not fiting well with non-Christian religions. Smkolins (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Serv181920, I think you've amply shown that "excommunicate" is used in reliable sources. So I think you should feel free to create a Baha'i section on the "Excommunication" page. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It'll be interesting to see what happens. Smkolins (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Serv181920, you have a pattern of giving a few sources that state your point and then insisting upon it, whereas what you should be doing is surveying many sources to see what is the common way to address the issue. I don't care about this issue but your style is not persuasive. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  00:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Why I removed the India number
Hi,, I wanted to touch base about including that India number. I see I made a typo in my edit summary which probably made it unclear... what I meant to write is we don't need *two* estimates for one country. My point was that the paragraph right above (citing The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2004) already gave a list of the largest national populations (including India's, which it estimates at 2.2 million). I apologize since with that typo it looked like I was saying we shouldn't have individual country estimates at all. With that in mind, is it okay if I remove the point again since the same info is already covered? Thanks, Gazelle55 (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I can see what you mean and my edit didn't fix it. But it's a broader problem actually. Most of the information is repetitious but the later data seems more relevant and slightly echoing the problem of other pages where there is a pseudo-continental breakdown blending into countries and the later data is mostly countries. I'd favor some kind of merger while keeping the best of both. Perhaps something like:


 * "The world's largest Baháʼí population according to the Association of Religion Data Archives lives in India, which in 2010 was home to an estimated 1,897,651 Baháʼís,[102] and its religionists are the largest numerical religious minority in Iran.[107][108] This was out of a generality in Asia of about 3.6 million from a nearly contemporaneous analysis by The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2004.[106] The religion is also the largest numerical religious minority in Panama[109] and Belize,[110] and the second largest international religion in Bolivia,[111] out of a generality of Latin America of some 900,000.[106] The Bahá'ís were the second largest international religion in Zambia,[112] and was the third largest international religion in Chad[114] and Kenya,[115] out of generality of Africa of 1.8 million.[106] Aside from these countries, numbers vary greatly and no country has a Baháʼí majority.[106]"


 * This is just a rough draft. Make sense? Or are the 2020 numbers out yet? If so maybe re-write the whole section and mind that the 2004 World Book probably isn't a good overlap. I'd welcome suggestions.Smkolins (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , sure I like the idea of integrating the continents and countries. What you wrote looks good in general to me (though I find "religionists" a bit awkward compared to "adherents").


 * As far as sources, I agree that more recent would be better. The World Religion Database released 2020 numbers by country behind a paywall. I looked into this before and it looks like Wikipedia wouldn't allow us to include the whole list for copyright reasons, but I have access and could add the top few largest numbers. I'll have to check if they list percentages this time. For continents, there is also this 2019 article based on the World Religion Database. And probably there are other sources I'm not aware of too. Gazelle55 (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've asked my library for a copy and they've agreed to get one. I'm to be notified when it comes in. Though with covid mucking things up I don't know when that will happen. Smkolins (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR needed
I fear that the copy at hand might need some sprucing up. It hasn't been reviewed formally in almost 15 years, and I'm not sure it complies with MOS rules at present. There are for instance incomplete citations (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer dated 9 June 1932), -tags, short stubby paragraphs, lists, see also-section, image tagging problems, as well as sandwiched images. Nutez (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes it's a bit of a mess. I find it much easier to work on simple articles with fewer sources. In the last few years I've acquired many books from independent sources covering the Baha'i Faith, so I can help clean it up, but we're talking about a significant amount of time involved. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  19:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I edit articles on Baha'i topics a lot and would be happy to help with gradually cleaning this up. In the meantime, I'll put a few thoughts here. I think another major shortcoming (as was alluding to) is the large number of non-independent, non-mainstream sources used for much of the information. There are quite a few high-quality sources that can be added instead. The persecution section quite reasonably focuses on Iran, but after that a broader selection of countries could be used rather than focusing so much on Egypt. I think a (brief) criticism section is also appropriate as per Criticism. The basis for that already exists at Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith. One last note is that while Peter Smith's books of 2000 and 2008 are good sources, we don't want to rely on them excessively for the article. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a GREAT idea. I don't know that I'll be able to spend a lot of time editing the article myself, but I'd be happy to contribute my thoughts on talk pages/votes/whatever depending on the need. dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 10:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * By the way, for anybody working on cleaning up this article, this edited book may be the best resource available yet. It doesn't seem to include non-Baha'i contributors such as Warburg, Amanat, and MacEoin, but overall it is up-to-date, comprehensive, and features a broad range of contributors. I haven't found a way to get access yet but other contributors might have options. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I got that in the mail two weeks ago but haven't had much time yet. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  22:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Symbol of Baha’i Faith
The symbol of the Baha’i Faith is the nine-pointed star, not the five-pointed star stated in the article. 2600:6C4E:1200:16A5:CC5D:B828:13F:DECE (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * please check the citations. The five pointed star is more officially 'the' symbol. The nine pointed star is used more casually but it is mentioned on the symbols page. Smkolins (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

“controlled-infiltrated Sect”
I removed the term “controlled-infiltrated Sect” (sic) and replaced it with “sect” and hyperlinked “relatively new religion” to New Religious Movement. I understand there is something contention around the NRM thing but that’s not really what I’m commenting on. Feel free to remove the word “sect”. I considered removing it entirely and still am. What exactly could that mean other than conspiratorial accusations of heresy? How is “controlled-inflated sect” anything other than subjective/vandalism? I very well might be missing something, so let me know or reword at will. I’m watching the page. -.+ThAYYta+.- (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's well documented in the note and makes it much more convoluted to read with such inclusions, aside from very pov content being mingled with sources. Also there was a fair bit of discussion bring this to a concensus how this is described. Smkolins (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Queen Marie
Pardon,, about , but how does a Master of Arts thesis from the University of Arkansas count as "do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources" as you put it? Smkolins (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi,, in WP:SCHOLARSHIP (which is a part of WP:RS), it says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." I am sure there is a good source that talks about Queen Marie's conversion out there, but I think for this page in particular we want the source quality to be going up, not down. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , would you care to review the main article for more satisfactory sources and instead of just subtracting actually make the article better? Smkolins (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I appreciate your concern for improving this and other articles and the hard work you have put into improving Wikipedia. That said, I think we have some major differences as far as what "makes the article better". If you copy the article into your word processor you will see that the article is already long enough as per WP:SIZERULE, so expansion of content on Baha'i topics should be on the more specific pages, not necessarily a lot on this one. More to the point, I strongly believe that insisting on source quality improves the pages. Even still, I haven't gone on a blitz and removed all the unsourced or poorly sourced material from this page, because like you I would rather wait for better sources. I removed this material because it was new and it's already been noted on the talk page that this page needs cleanup to maintain its Feature Article rating.
 * To be clear, what I do on Baha'i pages is the same as what I do on other pages. I am interested in the topic of entheogens/psychedelics, and yet I make a point of removing sub-par sources from those pages and try to reflect the full range of scholarly opinion on the topic. If you go to psychedelic experience, the page is still not perfect, but it is a lot closer to encyclopedic than when I started—and reflects my own view less! Conversely, I have been slowly but steadily adding a lot of sources and content to Baha'i House of Worship. I was even thinking I'd like to get it to Feature Article status.
 * Anyway, I'll stop there. Yes, hopefully I will get to adding that in due time. As you say, there are good sources on Queen Marie's own page. Feel free to incorporate them yourself if you want them included sooner. I'm happy to switch them over to sfn after, which is a bit more mindless than doing content. Again, despite our differences of opinion, I appreciate your hard work and your desire to inform our readers as well as possible. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was probably overreacting there. I'll see where that can fit into the article and add some material from the other page soon. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to close the loop on this, I couldn't find a way to fit it naturally on this page but if someone else sees a way go ahead. The problem is that since it's not totally clear whether she converted, it will take more than a quick note to talk about her neutrally, and having a longer explanation on this page is probably WP:UNDUE. So instead, I added it to History of the Baháʼí Faith. I also copied the sentence about the Samoan king there. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent rewording
, I appreciate you trying to turn the list under "Social principles" into prose, but I am wondering about the source for the second sentence here, specifically for the claim "and other progressive ideas for the early 20th century." "When ʻAbdu'l-Bahá first traveled to Europe and America in 1911–1912, he gave public talks that articulated the basic principles of the Baháʼí Faith.[34] These included preaching on the equality of men and women, race unity, the need for world peace, and other progressive ideas for the early 20th century. Published summaries of the Baháʼí teachings often include a list of these principles, and lists vary on wording and what is included.[35]"

I would argue that this should be attributed in the text (e.g., "according to Peter Smith", if it is coming from the source of the previous sentence). The article Progressivism probably needs some work but you can see there that the meaning of the term has changed over time, and it's not clear which sense you're referring to if any in particular. Also a couple other issues, which I hope to get to soon myself. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As I understand the primary criticisms of the article facing FA is that nuance gets in the way of message. I would say there are many sources that speak to the progressivism of 'Abdu'l-Baha's efforts - race issues, women's issues, war issues - but pounding away with a bunch of resources clutters this. I'd argue it's broadly demonstrated. Do we really need to document it over and over, labeling each scholar? I could go back to the 19th century and the progression of the Baha'i Faith in more ways which Abdu'l-Baha was distilling down into speeches. Do we really need to do that? Smkolins (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking at the definition of progressive: 1) favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters. 2) making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.
 * There are further definitions about "progressive parties" in politics.
 * Overall I think the meaning is clear and accurate (especially with the reference to the early 20th century), but as always, be bold and make any improvements you want.
 * Smith's Concise Encyclopedia has a better approach under the heading "Baha'i Principles", page 70. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  02:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first point, no I didn't mean to say we need to attribute everything to a given source. We can use WP:WIKIVOICE for things that express a consensus of reliable sources. I was referring only to the point about progressive for the early 20th century.
 * Regarding the definition of progressive, yes, thanks for sharing this. I'm not trying to be pedantic or bring up obscure issues about the etymology of the word. But the narrative of history that we are progressing through stages of social progress (as opposed to just technological progress) in a more-or-less linear fashion is not a universally shared one. In fact many of my professors, fairly or not, were quite dismissive of this as a now-refuted "evolutionist" view of history. So to insert a line in Wikivoice that assumes this narrative without citing a source doesn't seem NPOV to me. More specifically to the Baha'i Faith, I can recall both Warburg and MacEoin having reservations about the idea that the Baha'i Faith was far "ahead of its time" on social issues (though no doubt there are elements of truth to the idea). For now I'd be fine with just having a source on that sentence. If I can find the sources disputing this account, then we'll have to attribute in text to show the debate between sources (or relegate the matter to a footnote to keep the text uncluttered). Hopefully will have time to get to this soon. Thanks, Gazelle55 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Warburg. Baha'i (2001)
Warburg wrote a small, 75 page overview of the Baha'i Faith for an Italian publisher (2001). Glancing over the table of contents, I think she does a better job of laying out topics compared to this wiki page. Here is what she has (shortening some headings):


 * Emergence and historical development
 * Declaration of the Bab
 * Rise of the Babi movement
 * Exile in Baghdad and declaration of Baha'u'llah
 * Development under Baha'u'llah
 * Abdu'l-Baha and expansion in the West
 * Shoghi Effendi and the routinization of leadership
 * Establishment of the Universal House of Justice


 * Baha'i beliefs and rituals
 * Fundamental doctrines
 * The Baha'i year
 * Baha'i festivals
 * Rituals
 * Prayer
 * Fast
 * Collective rites
 * Pilgrimage
 * Baha'i symbols
 * Economic rituals
 * Huququ'llah


 * Baha'is in the world
 * Number and distribution of Baha'is worldwide
 * Baha'i temples
 * Baha'i World Centre
 * Baha'i mission strategies
 * Social development projects
 * Working through international organizations


 * Schism, opposition, and persecution
 * Schisms since the Bab
 * International disputes and opposition
 * Persecutions
 * [Situation in Iran]

<b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  17:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal
Warburg's wouldn't work exactly as laid out. I don't like the phrase "rituals", for example. Here's is a proposal combining the current structure with improvements from Warburg's example.


 * Fundamental beliefs
 * Progressive revelation
 * Social principles


 * Historical development
 * Declaration of the Bab
 * Rise of the Babi movement
 * Exile in Baghdad
 * Declaration of Baha'u'llah
 * Development under Baha'u'llah
 * Abdu'l-Baha and expansion in the West
 * Guardianship of Shoghi Effendi
 * Establishment of the Universal House of Justice


 * Practices
 * Prayer
 * Fast
 * Exhortations and prohibitions
 * Marriage
 * Burial
 * The Baha'i calendar
 * Symbols
 * Huququ'llah


 * Baha'is in the world
 * Number and distribution of Baha'is worldwide
 * Places of worship
 * Baha'i World Centre
 * Baha'i teaching plans
 * Social development projects
 * United Nations


 * Opposition
 * Attempted schisms
 * Polemics
 * Persecution
 * Situation in Iran

<b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  17:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That would be a pretty top-to-bottom significant re-write. I see a lot of good in the goal of it. I've been trying to write up a brief and updated reconsitution on the "Number and distribution…" part. A lot of interesting things to put together for these. And agreed on the word 'rituals'. 'practices'? Smkolins (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'd say I'm neutral overall, leaning against until a clearer rationale is given. What problems with the current organization are you trying to solve? Currently, most of the headings seem simple and neutral, though I'll admit there are problems with some, like having "Symbols" under "Social practices". I'm also unclear why you selected progressive revelation and social principles as the fundamental teachings of the Baha'i Faith. Aren't the Baha'i view of God and the soul, this life as a test, the afterlife, mysticism, virtues and developing spiritual qualities, etc. also some of the most fundamental teachings? Gazelle55 (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Good point, I didn't clarify something. Under the main heading of ==Fundamental beliefs== I was planning on overviewing the main beliefs before stepping into the subsection. The heading ===Progressive revelation=== could combine and shorten the three topics currently as "God", "religion", and "Human beings". In general I would like to follow the weight of subjects as they appear in several reliable sources, currently I'm looking at Warburg, MacEoin, Smith, Stockman, and Hartz. The main change I'm looking at is incorporating Warburg's section headings of "Baha'is in the world", "Opposition", and "historical development", which I think are better and more natural than what this page currently has. The "progressive revelation" is not a big deal I could just ditch that. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  23:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, that makes more sense now. I'm okay with most of the changes though I find the current headings of "God", "Religion", and "Human beings" are easier to understand for readers who aren't familiar, rather than grouping it together under "Progressive revelation". I'm fine with changing "History" to "Historical Development" and having those new sub-headings, though I'd think that rather than ending with "Establishment of the Universal House of Justice" we should have at least one section for the 60 years since, especially the widespread use of the Ruhi Institute materials. The broader "Opposition" section makes sense to me, though I might suggest changing "Polemics" to "Criticism" to include both polemical and non-polemical critiques. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Stockman. A Guide for the Perplexed (2013)
My thinking is that if the page is going to redone thanks to the FA nomination it's an idea to start fresh and starting from the outlines of major newer overall sources can be very useful, allowing tweaking. I wouldn't mind seeing a table of the TOC of a few major introductory reviews like this Warburg text (I've not seen,) and Stockman's Guide to the Perplexed. Here's the Guide to the Perplexed TOC layers with adapted brief wording:

Smkolins (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Baha'i Teachings
 * Unity
 * Unity as process
 * Importance of education
 * Unity in diversity
 * Consultation
 * Unity and the need for organization
 * Incompatibility of unity and partisanship
 * Electoral process
 * Infallibility, covenant and dissent
 * Engaging society
 * Divinity and relationship to creation
 * Unknowable Essence, Primal Will, Creation
 * The Manifestation
 * Progressive Revelation
 * Prophetology
 * Revelation
 * Religions
 * Path to individual transformation
 * Prayer
 * Fasting
 * Study
 * Pilgrimage
 * Law and faith
 * Marriage
 * Family
 * An ever-advancing civilization
 * Work is worship
 * The Mashriqu'l-Adhkár
 * Teaching, social action, and public discourse
 * Global civilization
 * Lesser Peace
 * Social reform
 * Development of the Baha'i Community
 * The Bab and Babi community (1844-1853)
 * Declaration
 * Writings & growth
 * Maku
 * Day of Resurrection
 * Chiriq
 * Trial and execution
 * Ministry of Baha'u'llah(1853-1892)
 * Siyah Chat
 * Exile
 * Baghdad & Major works
 * Declaration at Ridvan
 * Istanbul
 * Acre
 * Houses
 * Developments in Iran and countries
 * Ascension
 * Ministry of Abdu'l-Baha(1892-1921)
 * Opposition
 * Expansion in the West
 * Development in Iran
 * Knitting together East and West
 * Houses of worship
 * Devotion & Persecution
 * Iranian constitutional Revolution
 * Freedom, travel to the West, and the Tablets of the Divine Plan
 * WWI and aftermath
 * Ministry of Shoghi Effendi(1921-1963)
 * Immediate aftermath of the death of Abdu'l-Baha
 * Priorities of the guardianship and building the administrative order
 * Interpretation and translations
 * Developments in Palestine
 * Developments East and West from WWII
 * Ten Year Crusade
 * Persecution
 * Chief stewards
 * Earlier developments under the Universal House of Justice (1963-1996)
 * Plans and minorities
 * Baha'i scholarship
 * Systematic persecution in Iran
 * Plans up to the Holy Year 1992 (this and next couple sections can certainly be aided by McMullen's 2015 The Baha'is of America - The growth of a religious movement, perhaps helping earlier parts too not because its about America but because it's an outline of the Plans especially during the House's ministry)
 * Plans after the Holy Year 1992 -6
 * Education, scholarship, and arts
 * Recent era under the Universal House of Justice (1997...)
 * Continued merging from obscurity
 * 1st Framework of plans
 * Scholarship, education & external affairs ( and then after Perplexed)
 * 2nd Framework of plans ( 2018's Religion and Public Discourse in an Age of Transition: Reflections of Bahá'í Thought and Practice, and 2022's The World of the Baha'i Faith can certainly help especially here)

I'm working on a table but realized it's not really a fair comparison (yet) because for Guide to the Perplexed above I pushed down to chapter sub-headings while merging some of them. So I'm backing that out and including the chapter TOC for The World of the Baha'i Faith. I may post this later when i have more time - very busy day ahead. Smkolins (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

How's this? (BTW I'm not objecting to Warburg's list as modified by Cuñado, I'm trying to provide a broader review, a sense of the worthiness of a rethink on this, not particularly advocating specifically on using Perplexed or The World perse.) Smkolins (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for compiling this, Smkolins. I think we'll want significantly less sections than The World of the Baha'i Faith has, though we can still probably glean some useful ideas from its organization. Gazelle55 (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Order of sections for the pages of other major religions
So one key aspect of deciding the organization is deciding the order of sections. Here is basically the order used for the other three main Abrahamic religions (I'm paraphrasing some section names to make them comparable):


 * Judaism: History, beliefs, texts, demographics, practices, leadership, persecution, criticism
 * Christianity: Beliefs, practices, texts, history, demographics, criticism, persecution
 * Islam: Beliefs, practices, history, demographics, criticism (and no section for texts!)

As you can see, there isn't much of a consensus. So what follows is just my thoughts and could be combined with some of the suggestions above. I think it would be good to keep beliefs, practices, and texts together (you could say that these together are the Baha'i teachings). I like having history first (except for the etymology) because the various leaders are mentioned a lot in other sections and I think it's a bit unclear with history later like it is now. And I think we should add a section for administration rather than having that mashed together with the "Universal House of Justice" part of the history section. So perhaps something like this: Etymology > History > Beliefs > Texts > Practices > Administration > Demographics > Persecution > Criticism? As for what sub-sections to have, I think we can take inspiration from the books whose sections are laid out above.

I'm thinking it's very unlikely this article will keep FA status so I see this as a longer-term question to work on. At the very least, I won't personally have much time for the next while. Gazelle55 (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I think my suggestions here didn't engage properly with what was already suggested by other editors above. I'll look in more detail at the ideas above when I have a chance and try to synthesize that with the way the other Abrahamic religion pages are organized. My main thought with my suggestions above was that we want headings that are simple, neutral, and understandable to people not familiar with the Baha'i Faith at all, arranged in an order so that earlier sections don't reference stuff from the later sections too much. Open to suggestions on the details. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Please fix Barrett citation
The text was put in by your 11 January 2021 edit without a citation, shortly after was removed by Serv181920, re-added by you with the citation  ... which when you click on it jumps to "Barrett 2001, p. 24.", click on that and it jumps to: Barrett, David A. (2001). "Global statistics for all religions: 2001 AD". World Christian Encyclopedia. p. 4. There is no David *A* Barrett and page 4 is not the same as page 24, but no mind, as a reader I would assume the book title was the guiding part. Somewhere within the next few days (I got tired of tracking down the details) "Barrett 2001" wound up as: Barrett, David V. (2001). The New Believers: a survey of sects, cults, and alternative religions. London: Cassell & Co. ISBN 1-84403-040-7.

An attempt by you to add David B. Barrett back in just made it more confusing.

My original point still stands: that the citation as it sits now DOES NOT VERIFY, and in fact has never verified because the citation always failed or was messed up by confusing/swapping the two Barretts, or having two Barrett-2011s in the article, confusing the poor. If you want to keep the content, then please find a citation you can personally verify today, with a correct page number, and preferably use a version I can also verify, like this one online at OpenLibrary.org (with the big blue 'Borrow' button) which I checked and cannot find anything similar to "Barrett calling Baha'i an 'alternative religion'" on page 4 or 24 or anywhere near there. I'm sure you had some reference you were looking at. Just cite it where it 'works' in Wikipedia. Grorp (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, all the links seem to work fine for me. When I put those in I recognized how crazy it is to have two David Barretts with different books published in 2001 that both have descriptions of the Baha'i Faith. What a strange world. David V. Barrett wrote The New Believers, which is what my links all point to when the sfn points to Barrett 2001. David B. Barrett wrote World Christian Encyclopedia, which has this in its reference: ref= , which means its pointer is.


 * I have physical copies of both books and I can provide contents on request. I glanced at The New Believers page 24 and the reference to "alternative religion" is the only example that is not in the section on the Baha'i Faith. The book subtitle is Sects, Cults, and Alternative Religions, and page 24 is a lengthy discussion on why "alternative religion" is the most neutral way to describe all the examples in the book.


 * I wasn't sure if you were removing it based on contents or the sfn pointer problem. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  02:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The links did not work fine. "Alternative religion[8]" linked to Barrett V. I made a change. You should go back over all the other Barrett 2001's and separate them. Note: The title of the book is insufficient to indicate it was meant for each and every religion in the book. Yes, please, provide a copy of page 24 where it says that about baha'i. Thank you. Grorp (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Lead summary
this addition is good, but I feel like it should be in article and not in the lead. The lead should be extremely concise. Any thoughts? <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  18:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Some of that is already in the body but some of it would be a good addition.  Gazelle55  Let's talk!  03:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed though I'll note the editor added a source, so not to loose track of that. I noticed a ton of wikilinking done in recent edits that seems overly enthusiastic though the copyediting seemed very good. Smkolins (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of a photo of Baha'u'llah?
Hello friends! I removed the included image of Baha'u'llah, as the 2005 decision ruled that it is vandalism to include it on this page (although it is permitted on the Baha'u'llah page). However, the very cool and good-faith @Smkolins pointed out it would make more sense to have consensus before making such a change. Education-over-easy (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive 8. The conclusion: Broad consensus for inclusion of the photograph at the top of the article following MOS:LEADIMAGE and no strong policy argument not to do so; WP:Gratuitous is mentioned but the consensus is that this image does add sufficient value to the article regardless of any potential for offence.
 * The discussion was a bit chaotic, but the consensus from 2005 is no longer relevent. If you have a proposal, you could propose an RFC for a change, but you need to have a policy-based proposal. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  00:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That 18 year old discussion is of no relevance in 2023. Wikipedia is not censored, and there is no policy-based reason to exclude the photo. Cullen328 (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)